Which team's alltime XI is best?

[marc71178]

i dunno, but he has clearly improved in that area

Out of interest, what evidence do you have of that?

 

[Matt79]

the opener slots for Australia are such a raffle. you can make cases for or against any of:
trumper, ponsford, woodfull, brown, morris, taylor, slater, hayden or langer.

 

[silentstriker]

the opener slots for Australia are such a raffle. you can make cases for or against any of:
trumper, ponsford, woodfull, brown, morris, taylor, slater, hayden or langer.

Yea, for India you pretty much know most of the lineup, i.e Gavaskar/Merchant opening, Tendulkar/Dravid/? in the middle over, Kapil Dev as the allrounder, etc. Places like Australia and West Indies have produced so much talent that it really becomes hard.

 

[BomasticBushkin]

As a West Indian, I still think Bradman would've done pretty well against the Windies 80's bowling assault. Considering how much faster they began to bowl, I'd guess he'd have a 50-70 average. He had very good reflexes (or so I'm told)

 

[silentstriker]

Well that's an old thread...but I'd still go:

1. Australia (Bradman leapfrogs them)
1a. West Indies
...
3. Pakistan/England/South Africa
6. India
7. New Zealand
8. Sri Lanka
9. Zimbabwe
10. Bangladesh

 

[Days of Grace]

Why is it that no one realises that West Indies didn't have a decent spinner to rival Warnes and O'Reilly, and, with Bradman playing for Australia, how the heck can anyone pick West Indies??

 

[silentstriker]

'Cause, as they proved so amply, they don't need no stinkin' spinner. I picked Australia, but it is very close. The third and fourth bowler is where they have the edge on most teams and their batting lineup is as good as or better than any lineup that doesn't have Bradman.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

I imagine India would be close to the total package when playing at home, if they have three spinners (any three of Gupte, Bedi, Kumble, Chandra, Venkat, Prasanna), and Dravid, Gavaskar and Tendulkar in their respective primes on Indian wickets. Would back them to beat West Indies AND Australia at Eden Gardens.

 

[andyc]

As Sanz said, nor do we know how they would have coped against him......

I heard a story related by Dean Jones (whether there's some licence here or not I dunno) where Bradman went into the Windies dressing rooms after the Adelaide test in 1988-89. Jones had made 200 and Merv Hughes 70-odd not out. The team all shook hands with him except Patrick Patterson, who was sitting down. He supposedly looked up at Bradman and said "You Don Bradman?" "Yes". "You Don Bradman?" "Yes" Patterson stands up and says "You tiny, if I bowl to you, I'd get you out, I'd kill you!". Bradman is alleged to have said "Son, you couldn't get Merv Hughes out, how do you think you'd have gone against me?"

 

[grant28]

Theres only 2 teams in it - Australia and West Indies

 

[PhoenixFire]

England actually have a pretty decent side actually. With players like Hobbs, Hammond, Botham, Trueman, Compton and Laker, they should be OK.

 

[simmy]

Windies for me. The fact that Walsh isnt making into their all time lineup says a lot.

Bradman shmadman.

 

[The Sean]

England actually have a pretty decent side actually. With players like Hobbs, Hammond, Botham, Trueman, Compton and Laker, they should be OK.

Agreed, though I'd say their team is more than decent - England are getting spectacularly underrated by a few in this thread.

 

[Majin]

Windies shade it over Australia for mine, Bradman and all. After them it'd be a shootout between Pakistan and England for 3rd, for mine. Pakistan would have the better bowling lineup, and England batting imho, so that'd be a really interesting match.

 

[aussie]

Agreed, though I'd say their team is more than decent - England are getting spectacularly underrated by a few in this thread.

Agreed, a strong reason for this i believe is due to the fact that the majority of the England all-time XI is made greats from way back except for Botham. So unfortunately people look down on that side a bit.

 

[Bouncer]

Windies shade it over Australia for mine, Bradman and all. After them it'd be a shootout between Pakistan and England for 3rd, for mine. Pakistan would have the better bowling lineup, and England batting imho, so that'd be a really interesting match.

I think u are right in saying that Either WI or AUSS for #1 and 2, but as far 3 is concern i think Pak beats eng pretty easily....just the balance that Pak has with between its Bowlers and batsmen is amazingly awesome. Pak may even give WI and AUSSies run for their money as #1 and # 2 too.

 

[Sanz]

I think u are right in saying that Either WI or AUSS for #1 and 2, but as far 3 is concern i think Pak beats eng pretty easily....just the balance that Pak has with between its Bowlers and batsmen is amazingly awesome. Pak may even give WI and AUSSies run for their money as #1 and # 2 too.

England does have the better batting line up I think their bowling attack is as good as Pakistan's if not better. At least they are the more balanced one with Pakistan lacking a world class spinner.

 

[Bouncer]

England does have the better batting line up I think their bowling attack is as good as Pakistan's if not better. At least they are the more balanced one with Pakistan lacking a world class spinner.

So Qadir not a World class spinner??

U Do Surprise me with your lack of knowledge/understanding of game called cricket......over and over again.

 

[silentstriker]

Qadir is a good spinner, but not at the level of Warne/Murali/Laker, etc.

 

[Bouncer]

Qadir is a good spinner, but not at the level of Warne/Murali/Laker, etc.

Didnt know warne and Murali are picked up for All time Eng 11???

Laker> Qadir.......veery very debatable...Laker was Bowler who played on un-convered wickets....not to bring the level of partiality among umpire (not that Qadir had HAwk Eye for an umpire).

Qadir on other hand played when Leg spin was dead and revived the art again in era where wickets were covered and that took the sting out of alot of bowlers(specially spinner)....Lakers stat look impressive but still if he had to bowl in 80's on covered wickets against the batsmen who had better facilities (interms of TV replay's, Video tapes) to look at bowler before they face him.....and bowling in era where (for sure) Umpires had to be more more impartial than in 50's and 60's....all these factors considered i highly doubt that he would have matched qadir's figures............on the flip side you put qadir in Laker Era, where someone with the variety that qadir had and un covered wickets, he is more likely of doing as good as Laker interms of # of wickets.....maybe even better than him.